Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1887-05-05

ptwh,. ~ A. ss,tl.r WIN IN eooa y ,itb Sat
p.LIle f..ds-Tha Prcns- polio,
N1sa
oas
The Presidenthas sent to the secretary
OF the interior Tia following letter in rela.
tion to the Controversy between Guilfprd
Miller, a settler Ind u RAILROAD, corpHray
ton, inyolyingR She dAnefship fyf cettain'
lands. 81 IA =
fBE LEffEI. ~ III
/ have e~xamiSAf~~th fseelt cafe-and fr<
terest the questions involved in the con.
dieting claims OF Guilford Miller and the
Northern Pacific Railroad company TO
certain public lands in Washington Ter
ritory. The legal aspects oil the case have
been examined and passed upon by several
officers Of the government Ehps do not;
agree hGtheit coadhsionA. MIlef claims
TO be a settler upon the land in question:
whose possession dates from 1873. He
alleges that he haas made substantial
Improvement Upon this land apd
cultivated the same, land bttsppears that
he filed his claim to the same under the
homestead lawfon3 Dee. f;2S, 1854. The
railroad company epnteptis that this land
Is within the territory from which 1T was
entitled to select such a quantity OF public.
land as might be necessary to supply any
deficiency that should be found to existin
viz bHttthttA hehAt IN " -" ~
the government to said company ia laid, OF.
the construction OF the road-such defisien,.
ry beingcoptemplated as likely to arise from
the paramount right of private purchase,
and settlers within the territory embraer
ing said granted lands, and that the land
in dispute was thus selected by the com.
pany on Dec. 12, 1883. a large, tract in.
Guiding this land. WAS withdrawn by an
order OF the interior department from sale
- NzlIf-I.I - -
try in 1872, in anticipation OF the con.
stfuction Of said road and a deficiency in
It's granted lands. In 1880, upon the fail
ing OF a map of definite location OF the
road, the land in controversy. and that
which had been 40 %mithdfawn WIS found
to, lie, outside OF tbs, limit which in.
cluded the granted lands but it's with
drawal and reservation from settlement
and entry under our lane laws we're con-
.tinued upo the theory that il was within.
the limits of Indemnity Hands which might
he selected by the company, as provided
nv The law making the rant. e.,
= ..E7 Ar PoISIs} - si4l
in this eontroyersy Turned upon, the valid
ityand effect of the Withdrawal and sselec.
t;an az the hna and the ~e0htfnuanee
thereof. The attorney general is of the
o~ninion that sucb withdrawal and
reservation were at all times esfectual, and
that they operated to prevent Miller from
EheoTirinc any interest or right to the land
claimed by him! 9 withthis interpretation
Of the law. and the former orders and acs
ton OF the interior department, it will be
seen thai their effect has been the with
.arawal and reservation since 1882 Of
thousands, il not .miliiens, OF these lands
IRON the o~peratioa of the land q laws
Of the United States, thus placing then.
beyond the reach OF our citizens desiring,
nnder such laws, to settle and make
homes upon the same; and this has been
done for the benefit of. q railroad
company having no Fixed, certain or def=
nite interest in such lands. Ia this manner
the beneficient policy and intention OF the.
government in relation to the public do
main for all these years has TO that extent
been thwarted. There seems TO be no
evidence presented showing how much IL
any OF this vast tract is necessary for the,
iulillment OF the grant to the railroad
Iecmpany; nor does there appear TO be any
limitation Oh the tim e wherein which this
act should be made known and the oorpo-
ration is obliged to make its selection.
After q lapse OF fifteen years this large body
Of the pubic domain is still held in reserve